Evaluation of BacT/Alert FAN Plus Bottles for the Culture of Peritoneal Dialysate

Min-Seung Park, I. Yoo, O. Kang, Jung Eun Lee, D. Kim, H. Huh, N. Lee
{"title":"Evaluation of BacT/Alert FAN Plus Bottles for the Culture of Peritoneal Dialysate","authors":"Min-Seung Park, I. Yoo, O. Kang, Jung Eun Lee, D. Kim, H. Huh, N. Lee","doi":"10.5145/acm.2019.22.4.90","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is peritonitis, and bacterial culture of PD effluent in a blood culture bottle is the preferred technique for diagnosis of peritonitis. In this study, we compared dialysate inoculation and culture using the BacT/AlerTR Fastidious Antimicrobial Neutralization Plus blood culture bottles (FAN Plus; bioMérieux, France) to the conventional centrifugation culture method. Methods: A total of 170 PD effluents were simultaneously processed by the conventional centrifugation culture method and by culture using FAN Plus media with two different inoculation procedures: inoculation after centrifugation and direct bedside inoculation. Results: Of the 52 cultures that were positive on at least one of the culture methods, 27 samples were positive on conventional centrifugation. However, 46 samples showed growth following inoculation into the FAN Plus media after centrifugation, and 47 samples were positive on the direct FAN Plus inoculation method. Using the case definition for PD peritonitis to classify samples, sensitivity of the conventional method was 50.0% (95% CI, 33.7-66.3%), whereas the sensitivity of the FAN Plus media was 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2-89.9%) by inoculation after centrifugation and 86.8% (95% CI, 71.1-95.1%) by direct inoculation. Use of both inoculation methods with FAN Plus media resulted in 92.1% sensitivity (95% CI, 89.2-99.9%). Conclusion: Culture using FAN Plus media demonstrated a superior bacterial recovery rate to the conventional centrifugation culture method. A combination of the two inoculation methods with FAN Plus media is recommended for the best diagnostic yield, while direct inoculation alone can be useful due to its simplicity and cost-effectiveness. (Ann Clin Microbiol 2019;22:90-95)","PeriodicalId":34065,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5145/acm.2019.22.4.90","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is peritonitis, and bacterial culture of PD effluent in a blood culture bottle is the preferred technique for diagnosis of peritonitis. In this study, we compared dialysate inoculation and culture using the BacT/AlerTR Fastidious Antimicrobial Neutralization Plus blood culture bottles (FAN Plus; bioMérieux, France) to the conventional centrifugation culture method. Methods: A total of 170 PD effluents were simultaneously processed by the conventional centrifugation culture method and by culture using FAN Plus media with two different inoculation procedures: inoculation after centrifugation and direct bedside inoculation. Results: Of the 52 cultures that were positive on at least one of the culture methods, 27 samples were positive on conventional centrifugation. However, 46 samples showed growth following inoculation into the FAN Plus media after centrifugation, and 47 samples were positive on the direct FAN Plus inoculation method. Using the case definition for PD peritonitis to classify samples, sensitivity of the conventional method was 50.0% (95% CI, 33.7-66.3%), whereas the sensitivity of the FAN Plus media was 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2-89.9%) by inoculation after centrifugation and 86.8% (95% CI, 71.1-95.1%) by direct inoculation. Use of both inoculation methods with FAN Plus media resulted in 92.1% sensitivity (95% CI, 89.2-99.9%). Conclusion: Culture using FAN Plus media demonstrated a superior bacterial recovery rate to the conventional centrifugation culture method. A combination of the two inoculation methods with FAN Plus media is recommended for the best diagnostic yield, while direct inoculation alone can be useful due to its simplicity and cost-effectiveness. (Ann Clin Microbiol 2019;22:90-95)
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
BacT/Alert FAN Plus瓶用于腹膜透析液培养的评价
背景:腹膜透析(PD)的主要并发症是腹膜炎,腹膜透析流出物在血培养瓶中进行细菌培养是诊断腹膜炎的首选技术。在这项研究中,我们比较了透析液接种和培养使用BacT/AlerTR挑剔抗菌中和+血培养瓶(FAN Plus;biomrieux, France)改为传统的离心培养方法。方法:采用常规离心培养法和FAN Plus培养基培养法同时处理170例PD废水,分别采用离心后接种和直接床边接种两种不同的接种程序。结果:在52个培养物中至少有一种培养方法呈阳性,27个样品在常规离心中呈阳性。46个样品离心后接种到FAN Plus培养基中生长,47个样品直接接种FAN Plus法阳性。采用PD腹膜炎病例定义对样本进行分类,常规方法的敏感性为50.0% (95% CI, 33.7 ~ 66.3%),而FAN Plus培养基离心接种的敏感性为78.9% (95% CI, 62.2 ~ 89.9%),直接接种的敏感性为86.8% (95% CI, 71.1 ~ 95.1%)。两种接种方法均使用FAN Plus培养基,敏感性为92.1% (95% CI, 89.2-99.9%)。结论:FAN Plus培养基比传统的离心培养法具有更高的细菌回收率。建议将两种接种方法与FAN Plus培养基结合使用,以获得最佳诊断产量,而单独直接接种因其简单和成本效益而有用。(安克林微生物杂志2019;22:90-95)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Emergence of Vanrija humicola as a pathogen of urinary tract infections in Korea ACM’s transition to an English journal: A leap towards international recognition Screening for potential infections in fecal microbiota transplantation guidelines and an experience of microbiota bank operation in Korea: a narrative review Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides dif f icile infection: guidelines and status of practice in Korea Taenia saginata infection incidentally detected during workup for lymphoma from an 8-year-old boy in Korea: a case report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1